"Just four months after a Florida jury acquitted Casey Anthony of murdering her daughter, one of the prosecutors has released a ghostwritten book called “Imperfect Justice.’’ This is the way the justice system works in the most spectacular cases: there is the legal phase, and there is the cash-in phase, and sometimes the two are concurrent. But it’s too easy to confuse stunning TV “gotcha’’ moments with a clear path to conviction. No one should count on the courts for emotional satisfaction."
-Joanna Weiss 20 Nov. 2011


I think Weiss' point about denouncing the court system through emotional satisfaction commits the red herring fallacy.  While she does make a valid point discussing the concurrency of the legal and cash-in phase, she then concludes that "no one should count on the courts for emotional satisfaction."  Besides the fact that the premise right before begins to deviate from the original argument, I think that a basic knowledge of our justice system would state that a main purpose of due process in court is to avoid such emotional, and possibly rash, unjust decisions.  

Re “Questions About the Safety of Fracking” (letters, Nov. 9):

Representative Maurice D. Hinchey, Democrat of New York, does not mention the economic benefits of natural gas development in regions long plagued by widespread unemployment. As a result of investments in safe shale gas technology by natural gas companies, people are working and communities are again thriving. Repeated tests have shown that hydraulic fracturing in thousands of wells protects water supplies, and state and federal tests have found no groundwater contamination.

Mr. Hinchey would have us believe that because the federal government doesn’t regulate it, there is lax regulation of hydraulic fracturing — or none. Hydraulic fracturing operations are indeed rigorously regulated by states, which are best equipped to regulate because hydrologic and geologic conditions vary greatly from state to state, making a nationwide system unworkable.

Shale producers have a commitment to the environment and the communities in which they operate. They’ve adopted numerous industrywide standards to ensure safe and clean operations, as well as programs such as FracFocus.org, a Web site about fracking that lists the components of hydraulic fracturing fluids on a well-by-well basis.

JACK N. GERARD
President and Chief Executive
American Petroleum Institute
Washington, Nov. 9, 2011

This letter to the editor, surprisingly by the President and Chief executive of the American Petroleum Institute, answers the questions raised by a November 9th article, "Questions About the Safety of Fracking," by Maurice Hinchey.  In order to really see the fallacies here, you should click on the link of the article by Hinchey and read that as well.  In summary, I think, as well written as Gerard's response is, it commits the straw person fallacy by not really answering the right question.  In response to the main concern of Hinchey, which is API's resistance to environmentally friendly legislation, Gerard mainly focuses on the economic benefits of fracking, and the jobs it is creating.  Gerald does mention safety in the last paragraph, specifically the website that lists the components of fluids in the fracking, well by well, but simply listing what chemicals are entering the earth aren't exactly taking safety precautions.  Having lived in a huge marcellus shale region in Pennsylvania, I can attest to the environmental dangers of fracking.  For example, while there may be regulations, large, billion dollar companies will simply pay the fine for safety infractions, rather than change their equipment/buy better, safer, and more expensive equipment.  As far as drinking water safety goes, which Hinchey mentions, some water in central PA is undrinkable because of chemicals leaking into the water; some water is even flammable.  These environmental issues are vaguely answered at best by Gerald.  The article focuses on the positive economic benefits, and does not answer the concerns raised by Hinchey.

"After reading about low expectations for a high school diploma and limiting homework, I am concerned that we are becoming a soft, wimpy, mediocre society."


This assertion is from a letter to the editor, entitled, "The Quality of Homework," (NYTimes, 31 Oct. 2011).  While the letter provided some fairly strong evidence that the high school education of our country is lacking, I think concluding that this makes our society, "soft, wimpy," and, "mediocre," is too emotive, among all else, and commits the fallacy of false cause.  The connection between loosening educational standards has no direct and certain relation to a soft, wimpy, and mediocre society.  One can even question the ambiguity of what he means by soft, and wimpy.  I think that perhaps using the term mediocre might be justified, especially if it were relative to the academic performance and production per worker in other competitive countries.  However, the conclusion in all is weakly correlated with the premise and, in my opinion, fallacious.